The Midwest—rusting cities like Chicago, Detroit and Cleveland— has a cautionary tale to tell about cutting immigration: We know from experience that it harms our cities' populations, economies and workforces.
As the Chicago hotel and restaurant scene booms, so, too, does the scramble for workers, and some businesses say they need more immigration, not less, to meet their labor needs.
Millions have fled El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, and it’s not surprising, 43 of the 50 most homicidal cities are located in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Cities are the primary reception point for migrants and refugees, and also the potential antidote to the reactionary nationalism that threatens to close borders.
Globalization cannot be stopped, yet we can do a much better job dealing with its consequences by addressing the needs of those most adversely affected.
Chicago's bold ambition to prop up its population by becoming "the most immigrant-friendly city in the world" also offers a pathway to revitalize metros across the region.
As the new administration deemphasizes global engagement, sister cities such as Chicago and Mexico City show walls can't destroy the bridges cities have built.
Is Trump’s executive order really that much different from immigration bans imposed by his predecessors—including President Barack Obama? Or is it a big setback for counterterrorism efforts?
The Supreme Court’s decision on President Obama’s immigration plan ended in a split decision. That means the lower court’s ruling to block the plan stands.
